“Communism” in this case means a centrally planned, command economy, administered by a Marxist-Leninist state. Essentially, the system that existed in the Soviet Union until it collapsed in 1991.
I don’t think very many people are advocating for that exact system. Even the few countries that are still run by a communist party don’t have that exact system anymore, China and Vietnam being the most obvious examples. They have hybrid, or mixed economies, that I think could best be described as “state directed market economies.”
I don’t know how you, personally, would rank that economic system, but it’s hard to argue against its success. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty under a state directed, mixed, market economy.
Perhaps not, but a state is involved in every market economy on the planet, that I’m aware of. There is no stateless, laissez-faire, completely free market economy anywhere in the world, again, to my knowledge. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Frankly, I don’t see how a market economy can exist without a state, to enforce private property rights, issue and maintain a currency, provide public infrastructure, and prevent the establishment of large monopolies.
Unregulated markets tend toward monopoly. We saw that in the 19th century, during the gilded age when a few robber barrons took near total control of several, entire key industries, like steel production and the railroads. The gilded age was also a time of massive inequality and major economic crises. The state had to step in and break up the monopolies, and enact laws to prevent new monopolies from forming.
“Communism” in this case means a centrally planned, command economy, administered by a Marxist-Leninist state. Essentially, the system that existed in the Soviet Union until it collapsed in 1991.
I don’t think very many people are advocating for that exact system. Even the few countries that are still run by a communist party don’t have that exact system anymore, China and Vietnam being the most obvious examples. They have hybrid, or mixed economies, that I think could best be described as “state directed market economies.”
I don’t know how you, personally, would rank that economic system, but it’s hard to argue against its success. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty under a state directed, mixed, market economy.
Removed by mod
The alternative being to trust that a private corporation has your best interest in mind? At least the government can get voted out.
Removed by mod
Thus the inclusion of checks and balances to temper corruption.
Perhaps not, but a state is involved in every market economy on the planet, that I’m aware of. There is no stateless, laissez-faire, completely free market economy anywhere in the world, again, to my knowledge. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Frankly, I don’t see how a market economy can exist without a state, to enforce private property rights, issue and maintain a currency, provide public infrastructure, and prevent the establishment of large monopolies.
Unregulated markets tend toward monopoly. We saw that in the 19th century, during the gilded age when a few robber barrons took near total control of several, entire key industries, like steel production and the railroads. The gilded age was also a time of massive inequality and major economic crises. The state had to step in and break up the monopolies, and enact laws to prevent new monopolies from forming.